Residents urge commissioners to keep Wildlife Advisory Committee amid disputes over membership and process

At a Teton County town hall meeting, residents urged the Board of County Commissioners to retain the county’s Wildlife Advisory Committee and to improve how the committee operates, while some attendees said the panel has been "weaponized" and needs new balance and transparency.

Speakers emphasized the committee’s role advising the county on wildlife habitat assessments, migration corridors and other science-based measures that inform land‑use decisions. Several residents who identified themselves as long‑time landowners said they felt regulations and the committee’s findings had made it harder for families to subdivide or pass land to heirs.

"Pro wildlife people generally are not anti development. I'm not. I built my house 5 years ago," said Mike Abbott, a Tetonia resident. Abbott described February public turnout in support of the committee and urged commissioners to rely on qualified wildlife expertise when seeking advice.

Kate Finley, who said she lives on Bridal Mountain Road, likewise urged commissioners to keep subject‑matter experts on the committee: "You wouldn't want me on the agricultural committee because I don't have any expertise on that."

Other residents said the committee’s work should be reformed, not discarded. Jeff White, a permanent resident, argued that the county benefits from advisory expertise and recommended maintaining and expanding advisory bodies to handle complex projects such as a potential Grand Targhee Resort expansion.

Some speakers pressed the county to address perceived problems with committee composition and process. Kevin Mayberry said public‑records requests showed applications and appointments were biased in the past and urged greater balance, arguing the committee’s practices have "become weaponized" and can inflate costs for small projects. He gave a concrete example: requiring a wildlife study on a half‑acre parcel that cost about $5,000.

Jared Hill, who described himself as a multi‑generation valley resident and builder, said regulations have made it difficult for families to keep and develop land: "We don't need a committee to tell us what we can and can't do on our ground."

Other speakers focused on the scientific basis for committee recommendations. Patricia Boyd cited multiple data sources the committee uses — including state fish and game records and land trust datasets — and said, "All this data is correlated to provide a clear plan for responsible building and developing land while protecting and preserving . . . the natural resources." She urged people with the appropriate qualifications to apply for open seats rather than disbanding the committee.

County staff and commissioners acknowledged concerns about conflicts of interest and procedural clarity. Dan Reyes, Teton County manager, opened the meeting describing the county’s seven volunteer advisory groups (including the Wildlife Advisory Committee) and how member makeup is determined by statute or local ordinance. Reyes said volunteers fill expertise gaps the county cannot staff full time.

At the meeting’s close, the board took no formal vote on the committee’s status. Commissioners encouraged residents to apply for vacant seats and said the county would review conflict‑of‑interest documentation and committee procedures.

The public comments illustrated a deep local debate: many residents urged preservation of scientific expertise to protect wildlife and maintain the valley’s character, while others said committee outcomes have raised costs or delayed transfers of family land. No formal changes to committee authority were announced at the meeting.

A routine motion to adjourn followed the public comment period and concluded the session.